Socialized Healthcare Is Right for America

Universal Healthcare

Universal Health Care for America:

How a Socialist Model Can Work in a Democratic Country

The possibility of a universal health care system in the United States seems distant at times. Yet as more and more youths graduate college, and as more and more adults lose positions they have held for decades, one finds oneself wishing that the United States would at least secure this basic right for such individuals, many of whom have few prospects for immediate hire and remain without health insurance coverage. The political situation often does not match social reality, especially with respect to universal health care.

Though President Obama has taken measures to ensure that the health care system is at least reformed a little, the path to a future vote for universal health care remains long and arduous. Sadly, few can envision a socialist model of healthcare working in America, and content themselves with whatever reforms necessary to keep all insured by insurance mandate, which requires individuals to pay for insurance, and which is certainly not the socialist model for which one would hope. Though some may wish to see such a health care system implemented in the United States, many fear it impossible. [1: "Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit." (2010). True Cost. Retrieved July 4, 2011, < http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date / > .]

Socialized health care does not have to be the demon and the bureaucratic mess it is made out to be by the media, however. In fact, most of the developed world has socialized health care, and one cannot help but wonder what other countries have done differently and how their social health care systems can run so efficiently. Out of the thirty-three developed countries in our world, thirty-two have universal healthcare. Among these are economic giants, such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan. This research will therefore aim to explain just how the healthcare system works in these countries by defining various terms related to these issues, and will also entertain the possibility of such a system and what it would mean for the United States, if implemented. [2: "Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit." (2010). True Cost. Retrieved July 4, 2011, < http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date / > .]

The Current Health Care System

In order to understand how health care works in the United States at present, one must examine the roots of the problem. In essence, in order to do this, it is necessary to present a short history of the health care system in America. In the beginning of the 20th century, one could divide health insurance between sickness insurance and health insurance. Sickness insurance meant that a person could be compensated if he or she was unable to work, whereas health insurance meant much of what it means today, i.e. one is covered if sick or for health-related care.

Prior to 1920, however, most patients were treated in their own homes and therefore did not need health insurance per se to be treated in a hospital. Furthermore, medical expenditures were low in cost prior to 1920, due to the fact that most people only received truly rudimentary care, and most commercial insurance companies were unwilling to offer private health insurance policies, as most people felt that health insurance was not necessary, according to the Economic History Association (EHA). [3: Thomasson, M. "Health Insurance in the United States." (2010). Economic History Association. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

In the beginning of the 1920's, however, medical care prices started to rise. As the urban population increased, families appealed to hospitals more and more to care for sick members due to lack of space within their own homes. Due to technological advances, physician quality started to improve as well. In addition to the above reasons, another important contributing factors to the increase of medical care was licensure and accreditation requirements for hospitals, according to the EHA, who also states that by the 1930's, America saw itself enter the dawn of "Blue Cross Blue Shield," or Hospital Insurance. The organization describes,

"...As the demand for hospital care increased in the 1920's, a new payment innovation developed at the end of the decade that would revolutionize the market for health insurance. The precursor to Blue Cross was founded in 1929 by a group of Dallas teachers who contracted with Baylor University Hospital to provide 21 days of hospitalization for a fixed $6.00 payment. The Baylor plan developed as a way to ensure that people paid their bills." [4: Thomasson, M. "Health Insurance in the United States." (2010). Economic History Association. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

Pre-paid hospital service as mentioned above only grew later in the 1930's, due to the fact that this service was advantageous to both costumers and hospitals during the Great Depression, as incomes fell. The "Blue Cross" model was designed by the American Health Association to reduce price competition among hospital. According to the AHA,

"Prepayment plans seeking the Blue Cross designation had to provide subscribers with free choice of physician and hospital. [...] Originally, the reason for this exemption was that Blue Cross plans were considered to be in society's best interest since they often provided benefits to low-income individuals. [...] Despite the success of Blue Cross and pre-paid hospitalization policies, physicians were much slower in providing pre-paid care [...but] in the 1930s, [they developed] their own pre-paid plans." [5: Thomasson, M. "Health Insurance in the United States." (2010). Economic History Association. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

The reason physicians had to do this was due to the fact that Blue Cross plans were becoming popular and limited physician autonomy. Thus, in order to protect themselves, physicians decided that instead of competing with Blue Cross, they would provide an alternative to compulsory insurance that included a framework for pre-paid plans covering physician services. [6: Thomasson, M. "Health Insurance in the United States." (2010). Economic History Association. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

This is the beginning of private competition and truly the birth of the health care system as we know it today: private and entirely non-government regulated. One must remember that this all came to be due to the fact that the medical profession implemented a successful system of voluntary health insurance plans, and therefore held back governmental intervention and nationalized insurance, over 100 years ago.

An Alternative to the Current System

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation statistics on health care, around 17% of individuals living in America were uninsured in 2009. Clearly, due to this statistic, the United States is nowhere near achieving a socialized system yet. To add to this statistic, one can note that around 49% of Americans obtain health insurance through their employer. This is fine, of course, as long as one is employed. But what happens when one does not have a job due to various economic circumstances or health related issues? What happens in this case, unfortunately, is that one remains uninsured. [7: "Health Insurance Coverage in the United States 2009."(2010). Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved July 4, 2011 < http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=477> .]

While these statistics are quite disappionting, one must note that here are many health care systems that can lead to a better functioning society. This does not mean that American must become a socialist society; it simply means that this country, in its current situation is in need of some other system as that presented above, which is outdated and no longer mirrors the circumstances in this country. There are three ways in which health care could work under a nationalized system, and these ways are implemented in various developed countries in the world. The first way is through the single payer system. This implies that the government provides insurance for all citizens and pays all expenses. Providers in this system can be private or public or both. Of course, in order to sustain the single payer, individuals must contribute through taxes. [8: Thomasson, M. "Health Insurance in the United States." (2010). Economic History Association. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

The second way is the two-tier system, in which the government provides only minimum insurance, but allows purchases of additional insurance for a service whenever desired. The third and last way, and one which the United States wants to adopt is the Insurance mandate, in which the government mandates that all citizens purchase insurance from various insurers, whether public or private. However, one benefit to this system is that insurers cannot reject a patient. [9: Thomasson, M. "Health Insurance in the United States." (2010). Economic History Association. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

Given these various ways of amending the system to ensure universal health care for all, it is quite disappointing that the United States government has never taken steps to do so and it truly shows the power that the private sector has over this business. This is especially ironic because the United States government is providing universal health care for other countries in the world, namely Afghanistan and Iraq, which are receiving health care due to United States war funding. In other words, this country cannot provide for its citizens, but has no problem providing for strangers across the world who are also helped by non-governmental organizations. [10: Glow, J. "What countries have universal health care?" (2007). AOL. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

To further cement the necessity for universal health care in the United States, one only needs to look at some statistics. According to the Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care, there are a few important reasons why one must acknowledge this necessity, and it provides these quite effectively as a list of myth vs. fact. The first myth is that the United States has the best health care system in the world. The Coalition refutes this fact by stating that the country ranks quite low in infant mortality, life expectancy for women and men, and also various diseases, and shows that the statistics for all of these different aspects have shown a decline with regards to United States health care effectiveness. This, of course, could be attributed to the fact that this 'effectiveness' actually means that many people cannot even be treated due to the fact that they simply do not have coverage. The conclusion to this is that, according to the coalition, "the United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation." [11: Batista, J. And McCabe, J. (1999) " The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States." The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

Another myth that the Coalition debunks is that universal health care would be too expensive. To combat this, it offers various facts. The first is that the United States reportedly spends 40% more per capita on health care "than any other industrialized country with universal health care." The second fact is that, according to the coalition, federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting o [12: Batista, J. And McCabe, J. (1999) " The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States." The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

Office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits." The third fact relates to the issue that single payer universal health care would also save billions of dollars yearly. [13: Batista, J. And McCabe, J. (1999) " The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States." The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

Further facts that the Coalition shows state that universal health care would allow for more doctor visits, would allow poor people to receive proper care comparable to wealthier citizens, and would not undercut patient confidentiality as the current system does. To add to the validity of the issue, the Coalition rightly points out,

"...For profit, managed care cannot solve the United States health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition, managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks." [14: Batista, J. And McCabe, J. (1999) " The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States." The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

The case for a universal health care system, with health care access to all, is not a necessarily socialized system, and does not compromise American values and ideals. Clearly, the system as it stand now is flawed, and cannot truly provide this country with the things necessary for it, and the things which it needs to remedy this increasing problem. It is possible for the United States to achieve this system, and it has taken steps to do so by implementing the first steps of a health mandate, which can lead to such a universalized system, and eventually to health care for all. The fight here should not be about ideology, but rather should be about providing all with equal rights, and equal access.

Solutions: What Has Been Done

President Obama has done many things in order to enable the country to progress with this issue, and many of these things have been tried before without fruit. For this reason, the current President must be respected and revered. The White House Website provides citizens with information and news up to the minute on what can has been done to further these efforts. The most recent news is the ongoing debate with respect to the Affordable Care Act, and "the millions of Americans and small businesses benefitting from it [when it] scored another victory when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law is constitutional." The Judges considering this case further stated, [15: "Health Reform" (2011). Various Articles - White House. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .] [16: "Health Reform" (2011). Various Articles - White House. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

"...far from regulating inactivity, the minimum coverage provision regulates individuals who are, in the aggregate, active in the health care market…The vast majority of individuals are active in the market for health care delivery because of two unique characteristics of this market: (1) virtually everyone requires health care services at some unpredictable point; and (2) individuals receive health care services regardless of ability to pay. Virtually everyone will need health care services at some point, including, in the aggregate, those without health insurance. Even dramatic attempts to protect one's health and minimize the need for health care will not always be successful, and the health care market is characterized by unpredictable and unavoidable needs for care." [17: "Health Reform" (2011). Various Articles - White House. Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]

This is, indeed, quite a clear statement and a clear victory in a long line of successes since the beginning of the crusade by the current administration.

The passage of the health care bill securing such rights began in 2010, when the House "Democrats approved a far-reaching overhaul of the nation's health system on Sunday. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders held a news conference after Sunday's vote, which was marked by unanimous Republican opposition," according to the New York Times. To mark just how momentous this occasion was, congressmen even passed around their own draft bill to collect autographs, which signaled the importance of this event. [18: "A House Divided over the Health Bill's Passage." (2010). New York Times, Retrieved July 4, 2011, .]